Holyfield vs Usyk | definitive discussion

Says who? You? Ok. Duly noted.

Not sure why Holy was faster. He got hit quite a bit. Maybe you never saw the seventh round of the Forman fight.

 

Both Holyfield and Ali were hit quite a lot.

 

I consider them to be 2 of the most overrated HWs ever albeit for very different reasons.

Holyfields from the Moorer rematch is better than any version of Usyk even if Usyk could beat the typical one.

46 year old Holyfield almost beat Valuev whose bigger than any Usyk opponent. Holyfields also shorter.

Holyfield has a win against Bowe and 2 close fights with Lennox Lewis whose better than any Usyk opponent.

Holyfield was a better CW.

Holyfield fought the whole top 5 of his era at HW. Usyk fought 5 guys total at HW and is unwilling to challenge himself against anyone new.

Holyfield struggled at HW in a harder era, Usyk was the best fighter by a little bit in a weaker era.

 

I see where you're coming from overall, and I agree it's totally reasonable to have Holyfield ranked above Usyk at heavyweight, no argument there.

But I do think there’s a contradiction in your logic. You’re pointing out that Usyk hasn’t fought enough names at heavyweight to earn that kind of credit, but then turning around and calling Holyfield the better cruiserweight, even though Holyfield’s resume at CW is actually thinner than Usyk’s.

He beat Qawi twice (one of which was a great fight, but one he arguably lost), and De Leon. that’s really the extent of it. Usyk, on the other hand was king in a stacked Crusierweight division, beating Glowacki, Briedis, Gassiev, and Bellew—all on the road and unified the entire division in probably the strongest the division has ever been.

So if we’re going purely off accomplishments and quality of opposition at the weight, Usyk has the better cruiserweight resume based on your own logic of judging greatness. If you still prefer Holyfield overall because of his heavyweight run, that’s completely fair, it just means you're weighting the HW side more heavily, which is a reasonable stance.

But by your own standards (judging by who they beat at the weight), Usyk has the stronger case at cruiser.

 

Honestly I don't follow CW outside of its effect on the other classes. Holyfield is 18-0 to Usyks 16-0 with 2 wins over Qawi and a win over Ocasio while with HW I see Gassiev, Hunter and Bellew. And the guy who just fought for the Bridgerweight title whose not that good. Thats 4 guys who got shots at other weight classes v 2 so I guess yeah thats more depth though Occasio and Qawi are far more accomplished then Usyks 4. If you want to say Usyks better you follow the weight class I believe you. I'm just telling you what I see.

 

I respect that you’re being upfront about where you’re coming from, and that’s appreciated. Cruiserweight definitely flies under the radar, especially since it doesn’t have the same glamour or visibility as heavyweight.

That said, when you look deeper into Usyk’s run, it actually holds up really well. Briedis and Gassiev were both undefeated champions when he beat them back-to-back in the WBSS tournament. Briedis, in particular, has gone on to have a strong career, and Usyk beat him in a competitive, high-level fight. Gassiev was considered a real threat at the time, massive power, good fundamentals, and Usyk completely neutralized him.

Glowacki was also a solid win; he was undefeated and had beaten Marco Huck and Cunningham. Bellew wasn’t elite, but he was coming off back-to-back wins over David Haye and was seen as a dangerous challenge but Usyk stopped him clean.

Qawi is a great name on Holyfield’s record, no doubt. That was a war, and it showed Evander’s grit. But a lot of the names on his CW resume—Ocasio, Parkey, Tillman—don’t really hold up when you stack them against the WBSS field.

So I think if you look at the depth and context of the wins, beating multiple undefeated champs in their prime, unifying the division in hostile territory, Usyk’s run is arguably the best in CW history. That doesn’t mean you have to put him above Holyfield overall, but at CW specifically, I think the case is strong.

 

Same here.
It's tight

 

Yeah, says me. Better than you.

 

If it gets you through the night. I am convinced that you have actually never watched a Holyfield fight, but good for you.

 

This was a good discussion a few years back. But Usyk has gone clear, he's something special.

 

Holyfield, to the body. Ruthless with that technique. And I thought that before Dubois I.

 

Damn.. I didn't notice this was such an old thread. But I kind of stopped reading when somebody said Usyk was clearly the better cruiserweight. Isn't Holyfield on the cruiserweight belt, one of them, forever? As an homage?

 

I don't believe it's that close at all. Holyfield was a much better fighter than Usyk is, especially before he started packing on all that extra muscle and weight.
Holyfield also faced much better competition than Usyk, and beat them.
Usyk fights like an world class amateur, That's it, he is a beneficiary of very poor world class pro heavyweights of the last 10-15 yrs. The competition he is feasting on fight like novice amateurs, but call themselves professionals.
A few yrs ago, almost every poster on this site jumped on the " The invincible super heavyweights " bandwagon, and preached on how no normal sized heavyweights from the past could ever beat any of the " giants " of today.
Now that Usyk has beaten most of those "invincible giants " most of you now have jumped on his bandwagon, making him more than he actually is.

 

He lost almost as many as he won lol

 

How do losses to Lewis help Holyfield in the slightest vis a vis Usyk?

No way of knowing who the top 5 was in Holyfields era as they didn't fight each other.